Obama Proposes $60.4 Billion Hurricane-Recovery Bill

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama proposed a $60.4 billion emergency spending bill on Friday to finance recovery efforts in states pummeled by Hurricane Sandy, a sum White House officials called a “robust” investment in the region but that was far less than the amount the states had requested.

The spending plan would pay for most but not all of the $82 billion in damage identified by the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, helping homeowners and small-business owners rebuild, repairing subway and other transit systems, replenishing eroded beaches and reimbursing governments for the cost of police, firefighters and other services.

The president’s plan would not cover several big-ticket items sought by state governments. It would not pay for damage already covered by private insurance and would extend aid only to primary residences. While small businesses will be eligible for help, larger private firms like Consolidated Edison will not be. The plan also assumes that states will have to pay about 10 percent of the cost of any repair and mitigation projects that are approved, even though they asked the federal government to foot 100 percent of the bills.

2. I'm not exactly offended at federal funds to give people their homes back.

I know the Republicans will oppose this and do so near-unanimously, but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying they don't like helping the storm victims recover.

4. The hardest hit areas in New Jersey are republican areas.

The irony of Christie and these people asking for federal help after blasting government employees is hilarious. These are the same people who applauded Christie attacking environmental groups trying to protect coastal areas. Let the idiots rebuild. When a 50 foot wave takes them and their homes then maybe they will get the memo finally.

Despite the intended purpose of that $60 billion, it will undoubtedly increase atmospheric carbon levels and contribute to further environmental destruction (that we will be compelled to pay for because of the people it has hurt). Cannot we show an equal willingness to restore our carbon sinks, as well as shift agriculture to more sustainable models (like horticulture for instance)? FDR planted 3 billion trees to fight the ecological damage evasive agriculture caused...why can't we even think that big, when the situation is even more dire?

When it comes to solving big problems, humans excel at kicking the can down the road. Even our acts of compassion are laced with poison, as if there is any other way anymore. Its an awful situation we have got ourselves in, no doubt.

22. uh, don't you think people should have insurance for that? And if they're building in flood plains

and storm surge zones, do you really want to pay your taxes to have them rebuild? I DON"T and I am angry at having to pay for that. Flame away if you will.

I would rather the feds work with states to restore wetlands with the double benefit of helping bring back fish and wildlife as well as storm protection for residents. People should build well back and elevated from low lying areas. Ditto for businesses, sewage systems, power stations, etc.

And NYC subway system will be subject to this kind of flooding increasingly as global warming continues unabated so that, too, should be rethought long and hard.

3. It shouldn't happen.

The dolts are rebuilding in the same areas and Christie has suspended long fought for regulations. I hope right after they rebuild a bigger storm will hit and take the whole lot out to sea. I can deal with another two weeks of being without electricity if it will rid the state of these ignorant people.

12. A lot of damage done

outside of flood plains was due to the fact that natural barriers were destroyed due to development. There were tidal waves even running down city streets because areas that had never been developed before are now home to overpriced condos touting waterfront views.

Areas that were once left wild or open fields for fishing and hiking were turned over to private developers and destroyed. There are numerous reports showing warnings over this for years. The idiots still don't get it and want to rebuild in the same spots.

25. let's be real here - N.O. is an important port surrounded by wetlands, ergo, people will build

there. But if you do and you're wiped out from the many storms/hurricanes that hit the area, don't depend on taxpayers to bail you out. Besides, some of these low lying areas and wetlands should just not be built on. Again, if you do, the fed gov should not be the one to bail people out---go to private flood insurance, build on stilts instead.

26. +1000 glad to see other DU'ers have thought this through

27. I'm glad they're not giving the aid to vacation homes or large corporations

Wouldn't it be awesome if they would tie the aid to "green" building. If all those homes were replaced with new ones that meet the current "green" buiilding guidelines, how awesome would that be? It would probably be too dificult under the circumstances, but it would be an awesome mandate for future disasters.

29. Mixed feelings about denying aid to Con Ed

As a Con Ed customer I am worried about rates increasing due to the costs the utility has from the hurricane. Not just for me but for people in NYC who are much poorer than I am. It took them a long time (6 days) to get my power back on, and for some it's been a lot longer. But I know their people worked really hard. They have had a lot of labor disputes and I don't want their workers to take a hit either.

That said, we probably won't even get the $60 billion the president asked for, so I guess there have to be priorities. I am just glad they upped the request from the $50 billion I was hearing yesterday.